If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Smiles and grins......... damn thought I woul;d get more of a short circut response Don, man its tough to get dry witted sarcasm to come across in writting! Again many thanks Don as the KM 24-105 has been on the list of glass to pick up someday, maybe not now, I see a few other better choices now.

interesting test. btw: why are some so much brighter than others ? is that purely down to the lens or are the exposures different ?

i'm most surprised at the 18-250, quite impressive to say the least. on the flip side i'd be disappointed with the 28-300 which shows terrible results. the 28-200 is also abysmal. i cant remember seeing so much purple fringing in one test ! wow some of them are horrid.

Good test Don. That Tammy 18-250 is actually pretty impressive, I may pick one up as an all in one solution for use in the plane. The 35-70 holds it's own in sharpness, and lacks slightly in contrast, I can't figure out what happened at 70mm f/4. The 28-75 is impressive, but we all already knew that. The 28-75 was on my short list for a long time, but the 24-105 won out for range.

A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
Ansel Adams

Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

Just for grins, I went back and editted/added the illustrious SONY AF 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 DT "P.O.S." "Kit lens" to the list.

It is a scary comparison, but since it qualified for the focal range ... Here's CRAPPY!

I hope this benefits everyone ... I feel it is worth the effort to back up what I tell ya.

They say: "Put up or shut up." Well, I'm not done talkin', yet! Take a look at my results ... YMMV.

Last edited by DonSchap; 12-01-2008 at 11:00 PM.

Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography A Photographer Is ForeverLook, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.flickr® & Sdi

Have to give you credit for "putting up" and doing all that work when most of us would have rather argued about things without any visual evidence on the table.

I remember the last time I did a test to provide evidence to support a discussion... it took a lot of work, and I actually got very few responses and even some comments on how it doesn't really mean anything without actual test images so people can see with their own eyes (I did lens resolution testing with and without AA filters for the 4/3 system and used Imatest Studio exclusively for generating MTF results... was a purely quantitative test). By providing actual crops for people to judge for themselves, you managed to avoid that problem...

Again ... I just was trying to make sure that any discussion concerning the relatively "defunct" MinoltaAF 35-70mm f/4 MACRO lens was handled honestly and with good reason.

My suggestion is, if you really like to operate in this focal range, you are much better served by the TAMRON SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD MACRO ... and at $350 OR LESS, it is the REAL bargain, not some lens from the good ol' days. It has the digital coatings, a six-year warranty and focuses fast and accurately, in low light. Weighing in at less than 18-ounces, it is not a heavy tote, either, unlike the serious upgrade to the SONY CZ 24-70mm f/2.8 SSM (if you could get one, now) at 33-ounces and a $1749 price tag..

Last edited by DonSchap; 12-02-2008 at 02:16 AM.

Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography A Photographer Is ForeverLook, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.flickr® & Sdi

I didn't understand either why the lighting changed with a studio setup.

Anyway I took some pics with my 35-70 and I had to use flash. I don't have a Tamron to compare it with so it not a big benefit.

I also took some shots outside of a chainlink fence. It was getting late so the light was failing and although it was not windy the shutter speed ranged from 1/15th sec to a full 2secs so there may be some motion blur. I'll try to do it againg in proper daylight.

Nonetheless the pics look pretty good to me. At 70mm f4 it is pretty soft (to be expected as the lens is wide open) but it sharpens up at f8.

Would recommend puting some distance between you and your subjects. 7-feet minimum. It'll provide a pretty good gap for the focus to work with.

I was considering whether to post up a 70-200 f/2.8 shot @ 70mm @ f/4 & f/8, then I realized it was a pointless shot, because you would rarely reach for a 70-200 lens for a 35-70 shot. Apples to apples, so they say.

We can do an exclusive AF 35-70mm f/4 series, but the point is already obvious ... if you are serious about your choice in future digital shots and you aren't going to spend the big bucks, the TAMRON 28-75mm f/2.8 or it's brother, the 17-50mm f/2.8 are the reliable choices and provide good looking results in lower light. I recommend anyone get down to the camera shop and give them both a try and see what shooting indoors, w/o benefit of flash, is all about.

You just cannot do it, handheld, with an f/4 lens, 1/60 second and ISO 400 without making the room glow in the dark ... in daylight. No normal human would have their ambient light this bright.

To get much of anything "usable", you have to be at 1/15th sec and ISO 3200! Slow and noisy? Not really too practical. You have already admitted to the "softness" of the resulting shot @ f4, of this lens. An f/2.8 lens at least allows you down to ISO 1600 ... where noise is nearly tolerable, again. Going with an f/1.4 prime ... would get you down to a similar exposure of 1/60 sec. with an ISO 1600 OR a trade-off of 1/30 sec @ ISO800. Of course, the DOF would be almost counterproductive.

An f/4 lens or setting requires a mandatory flash device of some kind ... or a 300W flood.

I am not selling them ... I am using them. I know how hard it is to let go of the past ... but, the AF 35-70mm f/4 has been retired and my heart is not breaking over it.

I tell ya what ... I would love to see a 17-50mm f/1.2 zoom. Now, that would be a lens for all seasons.

DOF (Depth of Field) @ a "focused subject distance" of 10 feet

@17mm ... 5-feet (2-feet front and 3-feet back)

@35mm ... 1-foot (6-inches front & 6-inches back)

@50mm ... 6-inches (3-inches front, 3-inches back)

With an f/1.2 aperture ... you would have 1/3 of your source light for your image, rather than only a sixteenth @ f/2.8! Heck, with three candles you could practically light a room.

Canon released a EF 50mm f/1.2L USM last year, priced at $1400. Its MTF chart looks like a work of art. LOL

Last edited by DonSchap; 12-02-2008 at 06:42 PM.

Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography A Photographer Is ForeverLook, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.flickr® & Sdi